Joint degeneration is a common problem that can occur in a variety of joints throughout the human body. The condition typically is more prevalent as the skeletal system ages and is often treated with medications and/or physical therapy. These conservative treatments sometimes meet only limited success. If unsuccessful, the patient typically will continue to experience ongoing pain and limited mobility.
Often the treatment progression leads to a total joint replacement. These replacements have been performed for years in joints such as the hip and the knee. The replacement devices usually comprise some form of a metallic structural component or endplate with an intermediate polyethylene core. It is not unusual for replacements such as these to give 15-20 years of service before requiring some degree of revision.
In the spine, the surgical treatment of choice has been fusion for the treatment of intervertebral disc degeneration. The spinal intervertebral disc is arguably the most important joint in the spine and is situated between the vertebral bodies. The spinal disc is comprised of a tough outer ring called the annulus, and a jelly-like filling called the nucleus. The belief has been that removing the diseased spinal disc(s) and fusing between affected levels will not make a significant difference in the overall mobility of the spine. However, spinal fusion has proved to cause an increase in degeneration at other vertebral levels that must compensate for the loss of motion at the fused level commonly causing the patient to relapse into more pain and limited mobility.
Recently, there has been a focus on the use of “motion preservation” implants over implants that promote spinal fusion. These motion preserving implants, in the form of joint replacements in the spine, hope to alleviate many of the problems associated with fusion devices in the spine. Intervertebral disc replacement devices are seen today typically comprising a pair of biocompatible metal plates with a polymer or elastomeric core, or a metal plate articulating on a metal plate.
Metal on metal implants have a history of failure in long term use, however, precision machining has spawned a reemergence of implants using these materials since it is believed that this change in manufacturing greatly improves the wear. Regardless, the metal implants are radiopaque and continue to frustrate surgeons due to the difficulty in imaging the affected area. Other implants, such as those using a polymer or elastomeric core between metallic plates suffer from the same radiopaque frustrations due to the metal components in addition to the added complexities of design due to the necessity of utilizing a multitude of materials for a single implant.
The prior art discloses a laundry list of biocompatible materials including metals, ceramics, and polymers, that can be used for the manufacture of these implants, yet historically many of these materials have failed when interfaced together and tested in an articulating joint. There is in particular an extensive history of failure when polymers articulate against polymers in weight bearing artificial joints. Due to this failure history, polymer combinations have naturally been excluded as an acceptable self-articulating material combination for use in weight bearing joint replacements.
PEEK (poly-ether-ether-ketone), for example, has been suggested as an appropriate material of manufacture for use in implant devices due in large part to its strength, radiolucent nature, and biocompatibility. This is particularly true in structural implants having no articulating component. PEEK on PEEK has been suggested for use in low wear non-weight bearing joints such as in finger joints. However, the prior art has been careful not to suggest self-articulating PEEK on PEEK as a suitable material combination in weight bearing joint replacement devices due to the failure history of biocompatible polymers articulating against themselves.
One important consideration in the design of an implant is ensuring that the implant remains at the implant site, and does not migrate. Migration of the implant away from the intended implant site can cause dangerous and even fatal complications. In the case of an intervertebral implant, the close proximity of vital blood vessels, nerves, the spinal cord, and other vital tissues makes securing the implant in place a vital concern. Many different ways to secure the implant to the adjacent bone of the joint have been proposed, including implementing protrusions or spikes, keels, screws, surface roughening, and bone-growth inducing coatings.
In one known form disclosed in Published U.S. Patent Application 2007/0270961, a spinal implant is provided with deployable and retractable barbs for securing the implant to a vertebra. In one embodiment, the barbs 130 have arcuate bodies having sharpened tips for protruding into the vertebral bone. The barbs 130 are disposed within recesses 120 in the implant body 110 and rotatably mounted on pins 140. The pins 140 are disposed transversely to channel 160, such that the barb rotates about the pin along the longitudinal axis of the channel. The barbs 130 are deployed via interaction with a rod 150 that is inserted into the channel 160 of the implant body 110. The rod 150 has a sloped end for engaging the barbs 130 and causing them to rotate upwards about the pins 140 and into engagement with the bone.
In another form according to U.S. Patent Application 2007/0270961 shown in FIG. 5A-5D of that application, the deployable barbs take the form of conical spikes 530 configured to be deployed into the adjacent vertebra for securing the implant thereto. The spikes 530 have lower edges 538 which engage with the tapered tip 552 of the rod 550, which propels the spikes through apertures 520 in the implant body 500. The implant is also supplied with a lock mechanism 548 in the form of annular washers that prevent the barb 530 from exiting the implant body 510.
One embodiment shown in FIG. 6 of U.S. Patent Application 2007/0270961 is described as having a nucleus portion 650 that may comprise a ball and trough arrangement to permit translational and rotational motion therebetween. However, the figures of the application do not disclose such a nucleus portion, and it is believed that the implants shown and described therein would be unable to incorporate such a configuration. Specifically, the implant bodies do not have sufficient material thickness to incorporate at least a trough portion for a ball and trough configuration.
In addition, in the configurations of the embodiments shown in 1A-4D of U.S. Patent Application 2007/0270961, the implant would be drawn further into the intervertebral space by the deployment of the barbs due to their shape and their axis of rotation about the pins. This pulling effect is believed to be counteracted by the protrusions 172 disposed on the end of the implant, such that an inner surface of the protrusions can bias against a surface of the adjacent vertebra, thereby preventing the implant from being pulled further into the intervertebral space. However, implants that have protrusions that extend outside of the intervertebral space are less preferred. For example, a cervical implant that protrudes from the intervertebral space between adjacent vertebrae may come into contact with the trachea, which can cause pain or difficulty in swallowing.